Real. Guitar.

Gibson vs. Dean Lawsuit – DAMN! Not Again!

Back in the late 80’s and early 90’s there was a little memory chip design firm called Micron located in downtown Los Altos, CA. At the time, I don’t think they had a foundry of their own – they just created memory designs and sold them to manufacturers. Not a bad business model; kind of like Levi-Strauss during the gold rush of 1849.

But what was notable about them was that I remember reading an annual financial report from Micron that reported earnings in the hundreds of millions. Well, guess where the bulk of that came from? That right, litigation.

What was really irritating about them at the time was that Micron was suing people left and right, and it made them look like the focus of their business was litigation. Oh, they had some smart people coming up with memory chip designs. But as soon as they were patented, BOOM! Sue everyone on the planet for patent infringement. The trade rags would have frequent stories of “Micron sues X over patent infringement…” Talk about frequent eye-rolling!

By now, many of you have probably heard of the Gibson vs. Armadillo lawsuit. In the lawsuit, Gibson is claiming trademark infringement over the Explorer, Flying V, ES body shapes, and the Hummingbird and Moderne trademarks. I won’t go into a deep-dive, but if you want to familiarize yourself with the main points, here’s an excellent article.

The response to this lawsuit on the forums is that it is ruining the brand. And lots of people are starting threads asking things like, “What should Gibson do to rebuild its brand in light of the lawsuit?” My reaction: All the chatter and bloviating is just a waste of time. Wah-wah-wah. I can’t believe all the “analysis” I saw on the boards.

But in spite of that, it does make me raise my eyebrows questioning the logic behind pursuing the lawsuit which, by the way, was initiated by the previous CEO last year, then renewed by the new one. This can only mean that it was driven by the board of directors. Hmmm….

In any case, think about this: A couple of months ago, Gibson spent a lot of effort re-aligning its product lines and making it very clear what each product line represented; a move that was applauded across the industry – and me included – as something that was much-needed to reduce buyer confusion.

Gibson came out with lines such as the “Avant Garde” (now “Moderne”) to represent alternative materials in their acoustic guitar lineup. I have a J-45 Avant Garde, and what appealed to me was the construction with alternative materials. They also placed the various Les Pauls into specific swim lanes; something that really helped and something I had wished for for a long time.

So when I heard about the lawsuit, it made me wonder:

Gibson, you just spent so much time and effort re-aligning your product lines and gaining a lot of good will capital. I realize you have your reasons, but considering the struggles you’ve had in recent years, why would you subject yourself to negativity so early in the game of rebuilding the brand?

At best, this is laughable. At worst, it’s damaging, at least image-wise.

Look, I have been and I am still a Gibson fan and I’ll be a Gibson fan for the rest of my life. But I seem to do a lot of head-shaking about their business antics. Time for the board to get its head out of its collective ass.